Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject)

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Thu, 27 June 2013 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8960021F9E46 for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BHH+LGlco9xv for <behave@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04C0221F9C34 for <behave@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 08:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:660:3001:4012:7ddf:d947:bc5f:fe38]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2582E4040A; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:59:00 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <51CC6144.3080000@viagenie.ca>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 17:59:00 +0200
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ivan@cacaoweb.org
References: <CB1B483277FEC94E9B58357040EE5D02325A6E93@xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com> <2f7dce8264c8a9a72640629502a44295@cacaoweb.org> <51C1681A.5030909@viagenie.ca> <f8741fad1af1cee094de9c59408b7425@cacaoweb.org> <51C40374.8080403@viagenie.ca> <21e25b7ae1501228a67656b2fa4bc009@cacaoweb.org> <51CAA20F.4070307@viagenie.ca> <88c0ada2b8ebad078fb249ac6572fd8b@cacaoweb.org> <51CBD188.4060408@viagenie.ca> <fc3c7389e9fc7afc9201f0516de436a7@cacaoweb.org> <51CC2ED4.7090506@viagenie.ca> <4d2e082fd02ce46cd003631e8ca8eae9@cacaoweb.org> <014f01ce7341$e5416620$afc43260$@comcast.net> <c5d2c0cac921875729b4ad89a290fcf5@cacaoweb.org> <51CC52AC.8010702@viagenie.ca> <4a641d08eccfd84d2882e32369ad8e61@cacaoweb.org>
In-Reply-To: <4a641d08eccfd84d2882e32369ad8e61@cacaoweb.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: behave@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] (no subject)
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 15:59:37 -0000

Le 2013-06-27 17:29, ivan c a écrit :
>> We know that port overloading is desirable for a number of reasons.
>> What we need to argue is why the undesirable effects of port overloading
>> do not apply or can be ignored.
>
> Definitely, this is the main point of our argument.
> I think we have progressed in this argument and provided useful material.
> In this post:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg10896.html , I
> explain (among other things), why the TCP Hole Punching Protocol is not
> affected by the rare cases of collision due to port overloading. The
> application simply retries with a new TCP socket (on a new local endpoint).

...as long as the NAT does port preservation, right?

If so, the problem I see is that CGNs do not / can not / will not do 
port preservation, as a few people already pointed out.

Simon